Remove this Banner Ad

Rocca Cleared

  • Thread starter Thread starter FIGJAM
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bullshit for both, I reckon.

Rocca could consider himself very lucky. It was unnecessary and he should've learnt from 2003. Not complaining though.

The Buchanan one is just wrong. One week for deliberately jumping in the air to hit another player, seconds after he disposes of the ball is an absolute disgrace. Once again those cheats get more help from the AFL.
 
What a misleading title for your Post, Clem. Should have read: "Rocca will be cleared if the Tribunal shows Common Sense".

Anyone would think you just made that the title of your thread so people would read it. :mad:

For the record (as far as I know) Rocca hasn't been cleared and MRP due to hand down their findings after 5pm Monday.
 
Salty Malty said:
What a misleading title for your Post, Clem. Should have read: "Rocca will be cleared if the Tribunal shows Common Sense".

Anyone would think you just made that the title of your thread so people would read it. :mad:

For the record (as far as I know) Rocca hasn't been cleared and MRP due to hand down their findings after 5pm Monday.
Click to expand...

Wasn't my post mate
 
If he only gets a week for that then the AFL can go and get ****ed.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Well, i am putting my foot into it today it seems:o Apologies FIGJAM, I'll just crawl back into my hole now...

Incidentally, although not cleared, it's up on the club's website that Rocca has been offered a reprimand if he accepts MRP finding, or he risks a week if he contests.

Fair result I reckon, and the activation points tally is exactly as predicted by one of the posters on this board.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If Clarke was unlucky and say landed arkwardly requiring the stretcher to come out for cautionary purpouses, he would have got 6.

The tribunal have become too focused on what happens to the 'victim' rather than to what extent the player infringed on the rules or what actions need to be stamped out.
 
Jabso said:
If Clarke was unlucky and say landed arkwardly requiring the stretcher to come out for cautionary purpouses, he would have got 6.

The tribunal have become too focused on what happens to the 'victim' rather than to what extent the player infringed on the rules or what actions need to be stamped out.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Also if Clarke was unable to play on he would have gotten more as the MRP would have seen the incident as taking him out of game.

I'm glad that Clarke came back on the ground though, shows he has some ticker.
 
FIGJAM said:
Is there actually some common sense in the tribunal?

Oh wait, it softens us up for the soft suspension they give Amon (plays for the AFL Swans) = 1 week! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is bullshit,Holland,s bump on Montgomery is identical,Brodie Got 6 weeks,and Montgomery came back on the ground and kicked 4 goals,it,s any wonder people are losing the passion for this once great game,including me.
 
Holland had massive priors which addded to the penalty, Buchanan had never been charged with anything in 5 years which reduced the penalty. So not a great comparison.

Having said that, Buchanan getting 1 week for that is quite rediculous and makes a mockery of the system in general.
 
Thommo 42 said:
Holland had massive priors which addded to the penalty, Buchanan had never been charged with anything in 5 years which reduced the penalty. So not a great comparison.

Having said that, Buchanan getting 1 week for that is quite rediculous and makes a mockery of the system in general.
Click to expand...

This is why this game is been watched by johnny come latelys who have no idea about football.

High Contact
Off the ball
Reckless
High impact.
go to your calculator and work on not a great comparison.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom